Forum: F-35 Engine

That reminds me a little of the howl of the J-79 of CF-104, but just not as long

F-16.net Sponsor

The F-35 is as loud as it is loud, when it is actually flying, till then, it is not
at all loud, in fact, I am still listening.......no, not loud yet.

Wink

I don't know why Lockheed Martin didn't just stick solely to the original F-35 body [Link pending approval] The F-35 is much heavier than the X-35, and they both utilize the F-135 engine. This WILL BE a huge upset, especially in the F-35B. Thrust to weight ratio has not dropped much, but probably just enough to make takeoffs longer, and vertical landings less possible. Think about [Link pending approval] The plane will not always be on near-dry tanks when it [Link pending approval]

Because the X-35 was just that, experimental. It was not designed for easy (cheap) production, it did not have all it's combat systems, it did not have a production engine, it only had to 'live' for a couple years, etc...

The F-35 is built for combat, it is designed to be built on a moving production line, it is fully outfitted with combat equipment, the engine is now built on an assembly line too, (and makes more thrust) and the airframe is designed to last so many thousand flight hours...

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Don't forget that the X-35 did not have a weapons bay.

rhoads56 wrote:

I don't know why Lockheed Martin didn't just stick solely to the original F-35 body design... The F-35 is much heavier than the X-35, and they both utilize the F-135 engine. This WILL BE a huge upset, especially in the F-35B. Thrust to weight ratio has not dropped much, but probably just enough to make takeoffs longer, and vertical landings less possible. Think about it... The plane will not always be on near-dry tanks when it lands...

Actually, the X-35 never utilized the F-135. It used the JSF-119 which is basically the F-22's engine with a different nozzle. The thrust discrepancy is about 8,000 pounds in favor of the F-135.

The X-35 also will not be stealthy because it does not have any internal weapons storage. The X-35 also does not have the fuel accomodations to meet range requirements and lacks provisions for DAS or EOTS. Basically, the X-35 is a purpose built machine to demonstrate that an aircraft of the F-35's approximate configuration can fly, can hover and can go supersonic. It is completely unsuitable as a warbird.

dwightlooi wrote:

Actually, the X-35 never utilized the F135. It used the JSF119 which is basically the F-22's engine with a different nozzle. The thrust discrepancy is about 8,000 pounds in favor of the F135.

The JSF119s did have larger fans and higher bypass ratios than the basic F119-PW-100.

JSF119-611 installed in the Lockheed Martin X-35 prototypes. Had a fan in diameter between that of the F119-PW-100 and the JSF119-614. The STOVL -611 had increased turbine temperature and uprated low pressure turbine for the 25,000 shp to drive the lift fan.

JSF119-614 installed in the Boeing X-32. Had a "significantly larger fan" than the -611, (BPR greater than 0.6) According to our friend J@nE'$ it was " arguably the most powerful fighter engine of the late 20th century, with a dry (without augmentation) sea-level rating of at least 180 kN (40,500 lb st)." The -614 had a 2-D nozzle designed by PW, it had some vectoring used to 'enhance' in-flight maneuverability.

The F135 has a larger fan than the F119, new external accessories, an additional turbine for power extraction. (For the larger fan and lift fan) BPR for the F135-PW-100, -400 is said to be 0.57 while the F135-PW-600's differs from conventional flight at 0.56 to powered lift (Or STOVL) 0.514.

So as you can see, the F135's Fan/BPR has grown since the origional X-35's -611 to almost that of the -614's.

At any rate PW has officially stated 43,000 lbs @ MAX and 28,000 lbs @ MIL. Both will most likely grow over time (if/when/as needed) as the F100 and F110 both gained thrust as they matured.

Let's not forget the JSF119-614 (with it's slightly larger fan) produced over 50K lbs @ MAX during an X-32 test! Shocked

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Well, you know your JSF stuff. Thanks for the run-down. My only fear is that the F-35B will not be able to do what the Military claims it will be able to do. STOVL is one thing, but what will happen when the plane needs to take off from absolutely no runway? It does happen from the front lines.

The other main thing is that the pentagon wants an F136 engine, that, from what I can tell isn't worth fighting for, with less thrust. Yes, the cost is lowered, but like I said, the plane is already heavy enough. I would tend to think that P&W engines are top-notch. GE is good, but IMO not proven to it's name.

I'm also surprised that the F-22 doesn't use F135 type engines, with the "so-called" 43,000 lbs. of thrust, instead of the "basic" F119-PW-100 with less thrust.

Don't get me wrong here, but I just believe that the military should be using the best product possible for the military.

50,000 lbs of thrust in that X-32?? WOW!!

Yeah, 50K of thrust in the little X-32 would have made it a rocket ship. As for the F135 replacing the F119, this has been beat to death before so I will give you the brief version before TEG lays it down officially. F119 has a smaller diameter than F135 so an engine swap would require a whole new rear feuselage (and likely intake) redesign. Also, at 30+ thousand feet and M1.5 plus the F-119 makes more military thrust than the F-135. So a theoretical F135 powered F-22 would be more able to wow at airshows, but would be less able to perform its job of sitting two to three times higher than everyone else and moving at twice their speed.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Yeah, 50K of thrust in the little X-32 would have made it a rocket ship. As for the F135 replacing the F119, this has been beat to death before so I will give you the brief version before TEG lays it down officially. F119 has a smaller diameter than F135 so an engine swap would require a whole new rear feuselage (and likely intake) redesign. Also, at 30+ thousand feet and [Link pending approval] plus the F-119 makes more military thrust than the F-135. So a theoretical F135 powered F-22 would be more able to wow at airshows, but would be less able to perform its job of sitting two to three times higher than everyone else and moving at twice their speed.

I see, very good point. Well, I was just reading that the F-35B's main specification that the planes must meet is greater thrust than weight, in the first place. I was looking at Wikipedia, which I have found inaccurate. on the global security site, the [Link pending approval] variant must meet many requirements that I didn't know about, in addition.

Now I can understand the engine choice on the F-22, i should have figured that Lockheed Martin obviously installs engines into their aircraft as needed.

Brother Scotty has it... Cheers

Square peg, round hole...

The F119 was designed for supercruise at M1.5, the F135 is designed for high-thrust, low fuel consumption, but as such does not have the high specific excess thrust needed for supercruise.

If anything for 'new' Raptor production (one can still hope!) during 'future administrations' or FMS programs, I'd guess there may be an F119-PW-200 to capitalize on the F135's advances in technology. After all PW is pumping F135/F119 tech into the F100 as we speak...

Ref: http://www.pw.utc.com/Media+Center/Pres ... es+Engines

Pratt & Whitney wrote:

The F100-PW-229 EEP was created to dramatically decrease the cost of engine ownership without costly upgrade kits that significantly impact engine configuration. This was accomplished by inserting fifth generation fighter engine technologies from the F119 engine powering the F-22 and F135 engine powering the F-35. This increased the engine depot inspection interval from 4,300 to 6,000 cycles and improved the durability of key components while maintaining the 29,100 pound thrust rating.

The inspection interval increase extends the amount of time between scheduled depot maintenance from an average of seven to nine years to more than 10 to 14 years, depending on utilization rates. This increase is expected to reduce life cycle costs by 30 percent over the life of the engine. The F100-PW-229 EEP continues to be the only fighter engine qualified by the U.S. Air Force to 6,000 cycle capability.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

All of the sources in this thread have disappeared, otherwise this thread would be a great resource. Smile

@ Pants,

A little searching about the WWW via G00gle will yield many other sources of information in addition to the ones listed here years ago.

PW's press releases are now at the following site: http://www.pw.utc.com/media_center/press_releases.asp

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Forum: F-35 Engine

How loud is the F-35?